1. The importance of the wharves as key strategic place
The 1951 Waterfront Dispute was a significant event in New Zealand's labour history. The 1951 Waterfront Dispute was simply not a stuggle over working conditions amd wage claims, it was clash and a power struggle between the working class, the employers and the Government. The key individuals and groups involved, showed determination and persistence of those involved in the event to “win” their argument and unwilling to give in to the opposition forces. The numbers of waterside workers and other union members involved inthe waterfront dispute was 22,000 workers at the peak of the industrial action who challenged the state authority since the 1913 waterfront strike.
From the government and employers’ perspective, the wharves were key strategic places who thought it needed to be open all times. The growth of New Zealand economy relied heavily on the number of exported goods through the ports and wharves. History have shown that the Government was emphasized on the importance of having an open well-functioning port and unwelcomed industrial actions by the waterside workers. The waterside worker's refusal to work had "frightened" the state and the employers. The industrial actions meant that the ports would be closed and this would significantly disrupt key cash flow from overseas earnings. Previous industrial actions at the waterfront tells us that as the "tonnage" of vessels arriving and leaving the port with imported and exports goods declined, the state and the employers were upset that their profits would decline. The Government was interested in putting the waterside workers back to work. and have subsequentially undertook strike breaking tactics to get the waterside worjers back to work. From the waterside workers' perspective, the industrial actions were conequences of the state and employers neglection of the the workers' demands to improve up the declining working conditions and living standards and for increased wages. They also disliked the system of compulsary arbitration and excessive government control and authority over the wharves as they believed that the Government would use the compulsary arbitration system to take advantage of the waterside workers, and therefore, the waterside workers thought the industrial actions would change the situation.
The Labour Government traditionally have had an image of maintaining flexible, liberal policies, but the watersiders accused the Labour Government's actions in the years leading up to the dispute as being conservative, and anti-unionism. Likewise, the waterside workers have criticized National's heavy-handed tactics and authoritative actions during the strike as being similar to what the Nazi Germany and the Gestapo did. This led historians to continuous debate on how the 1951 Industrial Dispute to be called. While the "1951 Waterfront Dispute" is a widely-accepted name, The employers and government described it as a strike because the waterside workers industrial actions was a challenge to their authority, but to the waterside workers, it was a lockout, a demand for fairer share of the growth of economy and distribution of the benefit from the post-war economic boom.
The 1913 Waterfront Strike is another significant historical event in New Zealand labour history that share many similarity between the 1951 Waterfront Strike. The similarities include; the long-term long term grievance surrounding living standard and working condition, unfair share of growth in economy, wages slipping below the increasing and heavy government intervention and control in larbour market. The increasing discontent with the contemporary situation had led the waterside workers to direct industrial actions with aim of changing the arbitration system, and for better working conditions and living standards. Waterside works of both event found themselves in struggle against the employers and the government who strongly opposed the industrial actions and the Government responded with heavy handed tactics; the use of police and the recruitment of special constables to suppress the striking actions. Both 1913 and 1951 Waterfront Dispute were culmination of distress and discontent at workplaces and living standards, however, both events concluded with the defeat of the waterside workers as the state responded with the use of strike-breaking tactics and the use of heavy-handed tactics aimed at suppressing the industrial actions. In the 1951 Waterfront Dispute also saw the build up of working class-conscious, where the unions helped the waterside workers continue with the industrial actions knowing that they would be punished if they did so. However, the indusrial actions concluded without having achirvrd anything significant and little of their damans met.
The pattern of industrial actions at the waterfront seems to "repeat itself" as the waterside workers consistently demanded for better working conditions and wages, but the Government always able to get the upper hand of the striking workers and waterside workers returned back to work without having had anything significant achieved in both industrial actions. During the recent 2012 Ports of Auckland Dispute, the waterside workers and supporters had gone for a strike, demanding for the increased wage and improved working conditions. The waterfront continues to be a key strategic place in New Zealand, but this recent industrial action highlights the significance of the effect of unsuccessful outcomes of the previos,munsuccessful industrial actions, including the 1951 Waterftont Dispute, with the waterside workers demanding for similar issues to be addressed.
From the government and employers’ perspective, the wharves were key strategic places who thought it needed to be open all times. The growth of New Zealand economy relied heavily on the number of exported goods through the ports and wharves. History have shown that the Government was emphasized on the importance of having an open well-functioning port and unwelcomed industrial actions by the waterside workers. The waterside worker's refusal to work had "frightened" the state and the employers. The industrial actions meant that the ports would be closed and this would significantly disrupt key cash flow from overseas earnings. Previous industrial actions at the waterfront tells us that as the "tonnage" of vessels arriving and leaving the port with imported and exports goods declined, the state and the employers were upset that their profits would decline. The Government was interested in putting the waterside workers back to work. and have subsequentially undertook strike breaking tactics to get the waterside worjers back to work. From the waterside workers' perspective, the industrial actions were conequences of the state and employers neglection of the the workers' demands to improve up the declining working conditions and living standards and for increased wages. They also disliked the system of compulsary arbitration and excessive government control and authority over the wharves as they believed that the Government would use the compulsary arbitration system to take advantage of the waterside workers, and therefore, the waterside workers thought the industrial actions would change the situation.
The Labour Government traditionally have had an image of maintaining flexible, liberal policies, but the watersiders accused the Labour Government's actions in the years leading up to the dispute as being conservative, and anti-unionism. Likewise, the waterside workers have criticized National's heavy-handed tactics and authoritative actions during the strike as being similar to what the Nazi Germany and the Gestapo did. This led historians to continuous debate on how the 1951 Industrial Dispute to be called. While the "1951 Waterfront Dispute" is a widely-accepted name, The employers and government described it as a strike because the waterside workers industrial actions was a challenge to their authority, but to the waterside workers, it was a lockout, a demand for fairer share of the growth of economy and distribution of the benefit from the post-war economic boom.
The 1913 Waterfront Strike is another significant historical event in New Zealand labour history that share many similarity between the 1951 Waterfront Strike. The similarities include; the long-term long term grievance surrounding living standard and working condition, unfair share of growth in economy, wages slipping below the increasing and heavy government intervention and control in larbour market. The increasing discontent with the contemporary situation had led the waterside workers to direct industrial actions with aim of changing the arbitration system, and for better working conditions and living standards. Waterside works of both event found themselves in struggle against the employers and the government who strongly opposed the industrial actions and the Government responded with heavy handed tactics; the use of police and the recruitment of special constables to suppress the striking actions. Both 1913 and 1951 Waterfront Dispute were culmination of distress and discontent at workplaces and living standards, however, both events concluded with the defeat of the waterside workers as the state responded with the use of strike-breaking tactics and the use of heavy-handed tactics aimed at suppressing the industrial actions. In the 1951 Waterfront Dispute also saw the build up of working class-conscious, where the unions helped the waterside workers continue with the industrial actions knowing that they would be punished if they did so. However, the indusrial actions concluded without having achirvrd anything significant and little of their damans met.
The pattern of industrial actions at the waterfront seems to "repeat itself" as the waterside workers consistently demanded for better working conditions and wages, but the Government always able to get the upper hand of the striking workers and waterside workers returned back to work without having had anything significant achieved in both industrial actions. During the recent 2012 Ports of Auckland Dispute, the waterside workers and supporters had gone for a strike, demanding for the increased wage and improved working conditions. The waterfront continues to be a key strategic place in New Zealand, but this recent industrial action highlights the significance of the effect of unsuccessful outcomes of the previos,munsuccessful industrial actions, including the 1951 Waterftont Dispute, with the waterside workers demanding for similar issues to be addressed.
2. Last major industrial dispute at the waterfront with communism as a major influence
Communism, another branch of Marxism similar to socialism, was a major influence to the 1951 Waterfront Dispute which took place amidst the Cold War suspicion. The 1951 Waterfront Dispute is event of great significance to New Zealand society, as it shaped the face of the future industrial actions in New Zealand.
Socialism and syndicalism had been a large influence on the striking workers during the 1913 Waterfront Strike, as the striking workers strongly believed that these newly emerged political ideas rose out against the contemporary bureaucratic economic system, would soon replace the contemporary political system. However, the militant, socialist were dealth with heavy blow, as Government sought to deal with socialism quickly. With the defeat of the unionists to achieve anything significant, the militant, socialist union workers turned away from direct, industrial actions into unified, parliamentary actions and the waterside workers returned back to work.
Similarly, in the 1951 Industrial Dispute, the communism had been a large influence on the Waterside Workers' Union and the dispute was significant because took place at the height of the Cold War suspicion and when the anti-communist sentiment was a common place in New Zealand. Prime Minister Sidney Holland was renown for his stand against communism, who believed that he saw it was necessary to fight communism at both domestic and international level. Subsequently, the Government took heavy handed tactic to tackle the spread of communism and the militant Trade Union Congress and to cut the "extension of the cold war to New Zealand." (William Sullivan, Minister of Labour, Redline$. The defeat of the Waterfront Workers' Union's defeat resulted in the militant Waterside Workers' Union breaking up to smaller, regional unions without having had achieved anything significant. The 1951 Waterfront Strike involved greater number of striking workers and had lasted longer and it was close to becoming a general strike.
While, the Communism, and other leftist political system with similar roots in Marxism, have disappeared and faded out of existence as an influence in the industrial actions and as workers sought to negotiate the employers directly, and as the power of arbitration system and the compulsary unionism declined. Union strength became stronger in the 1960's and, the New Zealand workers have also led industrial actions in 1970's, but it was not as it had been in previous industrial actions. Communism had completely lost is place as an influence on the union movements and trade unions after the 1951 Waterfront Strike.
Socialism and syndicalism had been a large influence on the striking workers during the 1913 Waterfront Strike, as the striking workers strongly believed that these newly emerged political ideas rose out against the contemporary bureaucratic economic system, would soon replace the contemporary political system. However, the militant, socialist were dealth with heavy blow, as Government sought to deal with socialism quickly. With the defeat of the unionists to achieve anything significant, the militant, socialist union workers turned away from direct, industrial actions into unified, parliamentary actions and the waterside workers returned back to work.
Similarly, in the 1951 Industrial Dispute, the communism had been a large influence on the Waterside Workers' Union and the dispute was significant because took place at the height of the Cold War suspicion and when the anti-communist sentiment was a common place in New Zealand. Prime Minister Sidney Holland was renown for his stand against communism, who believed that he saw it was necessary to fight communism at both domestic and international level. Subsequently, the Government took heavy handed tactic to tackle the spread of communism and the militant Trade Union Congress and to cut the "extension of the cold war to New Zealand." (William Sullivan, Minister of Labour, Redline$. The defeat of the Waterfront Workers' Union's defeat resulted in the militant Waterside Workers' Union breaking up to smaller, regional unions without having had achieved anything significant. The 1951 Waterfront Strike involved greater number of striking workers and had lasted longer and it was close to becoming a general strike.
While, the Communism, and other leftist political system with similar roots in Marxism, have disappeared and faded out of existence as an influence in the industrial actions and as workers sought to negotiate the employers directly, and as the power of arbitration system and the compulsary unionism declined. Union strength became stronger in the 1960's and, the New Zealand workers have also led industrial actions in 1970's, but it was not as it had been in previous industrial actions. Communism had completely lost is place as an influence on the union movements and trade unions after the 1951 Waterfront Strike.